Talk:See of Sardis

Untitled

Did the Byzantines reconquer the city from the Arabs, only to lose it again to the Seljuks?Delmlsfan 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Misleading to downright fallacious

The article gives the impression that the Catholic (Frankish) Church of Rome was somehow central to the history of the see of Sardis, and disregards the fact that it was always part of the chrurch of Constantinople. The part about the Arab capture is extremely misleading, as the incident in question was a raid, and the city was immediately recaptured by the Romans. Also, the exclusively catholic bibliography is a joke. Causantin 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I get no such impression fromt he article. The only time the catholic church is mentioned is in connection with the titular archbishops. Please refer me to what speicfically needs to be changed to correct this impression.

If you can refer me to any sources you think I've overlooked in writing this article, I'd be happy to add them. I cited every single source I could find for "see of sardis," "bishop of sardis," "archbishop of sardis," etc. on google (web, scholar, and books), lexis, and historical NYT. I did not intend to imply that Sardis was exclusively Roman Catholic (although the titular archbishops listed definitely were); I think the article entirely avoids the question of how the early church comported to any present day Christian denominations.

If you could expand upon the history of when the city changed hands, with sources, I'd be thrilled.

I also strongly disagree that the bibliogrpahy is "exclusively catholic." savid@n 19:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that you seem to ignore the fact (which really does not need references) that Sardis was right in the heart of the territory of the church of Constantinople. The (christian) people of the area were 100% orthodox, and the catholic (frankish) "titular archibishops" were completely irrelevant, since they did not have a congregation. If you really need references, any basic text of the period's history would do (Treadgold, Ostrogorsky, Mango etc). Ecclesiastic history is not my forte, and I am afraid I have no time to translate orthodox sources, but this is not the point. The point is that the history of the see has to be congruent with the history of the region. The very least that should be noted is that it was a part of the patriarchate of Constantinople. A quick search revealed that the episopality is extant, currently help by the Metropolitan of Sardeis, Maximus. I will try to make a few changes.

P.S. Sorry about the "is a joke" quip, I overreacted. Causantin 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As the link to the titular articles should clarify, titular bishops never have any relevance to the people in their titular sees and the article does not imply this. If you can find a listing of the Metropolitan of Sardeis (I'll do some searche for that term), list those here as well. But please be careful not to extend the east west split farther than it goes back in history. There was no such split in the time of Melito. savid@n 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail - It is my opinion that the prose for this particular article is not particularly clear. In describing Sardis historically, the text tends to jump from time period to time period, crisscrossing dates in an almost idiosyncratic fashion. I would recommend organizing the narrative of the article in linear chronological fashion.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass - Copious reference material has been utilized.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail - The list of bishops/archbishops is incomplete. In particular, what of the claim on the talk page that there is currently an incumbent to the Titular See of Sarids…was that ever followed up on, because if there is an incumbent, it belongs in this article. If not, that should be addressed on the talk page.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass - no significant problems

5. Article stability? Neither - there was a significant amount of edits immediately before the nomination for GA status, but it has been relatively stable subsequently. Perhaps a longer period of stability would be beneficial to see if other editors could add to the topic, particularly since the main effort was in the development of citations.

6. Images?: Pass - image meets the criteria

Here's a comment in Jan. 2010 comment from drop-in visitor: Caption for a painting of a man at right begins with the word 'Clement'. But the art (an El Greco) is actually of the apostle Paul. Presumably no painter chose to make a portrait of such a minor Clement. But in the absence of one, is it better to plug in El Greco's Paul, just for a dash of color? I think it looks out of place. And the 'Clement' caption doesn't fit the 'Paul' subject very well, except by making a stretch.

Also the caption doesn't footnote any evidence backing the claim that (a) the Clement of Philippians isn't the same Clement as the Roman pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.183.128 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

Based on the evaluation above, it is my opinion that this article does not merit GA promotion at this time. — jackturner3 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no incumbent. I noted in the intro how long the see has been vacant depending on who you ask. The list is fundamentally incomplete, as there are a paucity of sources for this. I am waiting for a copy of LeQuien but even his list is fragmentary and unlikely to make this one seem substantially "complete". I'll see what I can do about the history section. Savidan 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no current incumbent, then that is one thing. Additionally, while there are significant periods of time that this see was vacant, something should be done in the bishops list to identify when the see is vacant (that we know), when there could have been an incumbent but we don't know who it was or when they reigned, or who is the see's occupant. That's more of what I was getting at when I stated that I felt the list was "incomplete": that there isn't sufficient detail to determine what is/isn't going on when and where. Hopefully, LeQuien will be helpfull in filling in the chronological gaps. -- jackturner3 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Angel = Bishop

It is clear POV that the Angel of the Church in Revelation was its bishop. While some Christian denominations accept that, it has been the subject of long debate in divinity departments as to whether the Angel is a bishop, a collective or the supernatural guardian of the church. Yet here is it stated as fact that the angel is the bishop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.141.23 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on See of Sardis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929081302/http://www.originalcatholicchurch.org/english/s/P283.html to http://www.originalcatholicchurch.org/english/s/P283.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)